To:G. D. LEITEISEN

Written:Written in October, prior to 5th, 1902Published:First published in 1964 inCollected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 46.

      Sent from London to Paris.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1977],

      Moscow,Volume 43,

      pages91b-93a.Translated:Martin Parker and Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearLeiteisen,

Y.[1]passed on to me your resolution for the conference on the formulation. I
was quite satisfied with the “Confidential Communication”, but the
verdict should in my opinion be more emphatic, more categorical. In
particular, I would suggest:

Runpar. 3 into par. 4, since in itself par. 3 is unfinished and
pointless.

Addto par. 1: “A thorough examination of all the data relating to
Gurovich’s character has convinced the commission that as regards his moral
qualities he has nothing in common with a sincere and honest
revolutionary.”

Topar. 2. “Consequently, Gurovich did not tell the truth or had to
conceal much about his means of livelihood.”

Par.3.See above (and par. 4).

Par.5.The commission finds that even if in any one of these instances
it could be assumed that the gendarmes learned the facts in some other,
chance, and unknown manner, a comparison of all these instances absolutely
rules out such an assumption and allows of no doubt as to Gurovich’s
treachery.

Par.6should precede par. 5.

Par.7.Insert “unanimously and insistently”. Add: “The commission
finds that this opinion is fully borne out by many of the particulars
communicated to it which cannot be made public for reasons of
secrecy. However, the commissionis informing the revolutionary organisations of some of thesefactsin a confidential circular letter.”

“Takinginto account” should be shifted from the introduction to the
conclusion, for many of the points are not connected and, taken separately,
not too weighty.

Takinginto account the aforegoing, the commission holds that the
accused Gurovich’s plea that there is no absolutely definite evidence and
unquestionable proof in no way can serve to exonerate him. A crime such as
secret service in the political police, generally speaking, with the
exception of a few isolated cases, cannot be proved by absolutely definite
evidence and facts concrete enough to be verified by outsiders. Having
examined all the evidence in its entirety and thoroughly verified numerous
depositions by revolutionaries, the commission has arrived at the firm
conviction that (in detail) Mikhail Ivanovich Gurovich
			      (calling,[2]etc., in detail) was anagent of the secret political policeand
operated in St. Petersburg revolutionary organisations as aprovocateur.

Thecommission therefore urges all honest Russian citizens strictly to
boycott Gurovich and to treat him consistently as a traitor and spy.

Thoseare my comments, dear L. Please bear in mind that I did not have
time to give much thought to the formulation (for Y. wants the manuscript
back at once) and that I have only given a rough idea of the lines along
which I think it should be amended. It should make as formidable an
impression as
			      possible[3];

I would then be in favour of publishing the sentence as a separate leaflet,
with a photograph and an introduction fromIskraon the need to
wage a systematic struggle against provocateurs and spies, to set up groups
to expose, shadow and harass them, and so on.

Ifthe
			    “fighter”[4]tries to wriggle out of it, try to get him to enter his dissenting opinion,
or something of thesort, in the minutes, so that a record should remain of his
shilly-shallying.

Bestregards,Yours,Lenin

[1]Codename for the St. Petersburg Workers’ Organisation.—Ed.

[2]Herecould be added age, distinguishing features, etc., and the
suggestion made to publish his photograph.  —Lenin

[3]Likea court decision, the sentence should be drawn up in great detailwithout any fear of repetition.  —Lenin

[4]Identitynot established.—Ed.